MA bill on illegal access (and more) muddies the waters
There’s been a fair amount of critique already about Rep. Tobin’s bill in Massachusetts “to establish a crime of illegal internet and broadband access and establishing penalties therefor.” That’s a euphamism; see for yourself. There’s a lot not to like in this bill.
Given what others have already noted, I’m focused now on a tiny little part. I’m amazed at lawmakers’ continued habit of defining “internet service provider” different ways in countless bills. See what the proposed bill is doing under “communication service provider.” Consider then the CDA, the DMCA, the CFAA, all sorts of regs. How many ways can you define what is ultimately roughly the same thing? And how does that make for a good legal regime?
Jay
March 31, 2003 @ 2:20 pm
First of all, consistency is not always a virtue.
Second, as an extremely corporate person, I am very impressed by Mr. Gollogly’s earlier critique of pure reason and definitional consistency regarding precisely this issue. I believe that the plaintiff’s bar has it absolutely right on this one.